Author
Topic: Change from T3i to 70d, or invest in a new lens? (Read 11791 times)

Hi all!I am new in this forum, I have just registered because I would like to hear your suggestions.

Last year I bought a T3i, together with a EFS 18-55/3,5-5,6 IS II and a EFS 55-250/4-5,6 IS II.I really like it, and I used it a lot. I use it mainly when I travel, what I do very often due to my work.

I always liked to take photos, but I am not a Pro. Fortunately, this year I could save money to invest in my equipment. I thought I could buy a new camera - first I thought in changing to a full frame, but my budget is not enough. Then I thought I could buy the new 70d, as I could buy the body only and use my EFS lens. My idea is that after some time, I could start buying EF lens (70d supports both EF and EFS) and later on, I could change to a full frame (if I see I will really take advantage of the difference).I would like to take better quality pictures, and honesty I don't care very much of new features as the built in Wi-Fi. Do you think I will get any difference with a 70D?

But I also thought that I could invest in a new lens instead of a new camera. I read good comments about the EF-S 15-85/3,5-5,6 IS USM. I would have a longer focal length lens, and wider.

I would like to hear from you what would you do - jump to a 70D or invest in this (or other) lens?

My opinion is to invest in superior quality lenses, and wait for new camera models in the future (who knows T6i, or T7i). Canon 15-85mm lens is a good quality, but will not make a big difference in picture quality, it is as dark as your current lens (F3.5-5.6). On the other hand, Canon 17-55mm F2.8 will make a big difference, because it remains in 55mm F2.8 and allows better use of the available light. That way you can use a lower ISO, which will improve the quality of clearly without changing camera.

Before anybody jumps into some sort of comparison you need to share what kind of pictures you take, what are you unable to take and why you are unable to take them with your current gear. There are always pros and cons but your acquisition should be driven by your need to take pictures (or video)...

The sensors aren't much different in terms of picture quality until you get into ISO past 6400. If you find you're throwing away a lot of shots due to not being sharp focus, then you could benefit from the better AF system of the 70d. Otherwise, you'll get better photos from better glass.

You really don't have any "fast" (wide aperture) lenses; you could probably benefit from getting something at f2.8 or lower. The 17-85 seems to only buy you the additional focal length over your kit lens, and since you've already got 55-85 covered in the 55-250, you'd probably be better off buying the 17-55 f/2.8. When I shot crop, I had a good copy of the Tamron 17-55 f2.8 VC and it was my favorite lens (until i dropped it); but I may have been lucky with that copy.

Check out reviews on the-digitial-picture.com and search flickr groups for the lenses you're interested in to see what others are doing with it. Also, go through your past pictures you liked and see if you see a common theme with focal lengths. You might find that you're shooting a lot of shots at 24, 35, 50, 85, or 100mm - all of which, canon makes great affordable fast primes in.

I also have a T3i and the two lenses you mention. Like others have mentioned, you need to think about how your current gear is limiting you, and what kind of photos you want to take.

If you get a new lens, I suggest a wide angle, especially if you do landscapes. Look at the Tokina 11-16. It's EF-S, but it's relatively inexpensive and the image quality is outstanding for the price. There's a new II version, but as far as I can tell it's not visibly better than version I.

You have the 18-250mm focal range covered well. The 55-250 is an outstanding lens for the price. It's sharp, light weight, and has a long reach. The 18-55 is also very good. Do you find either of them to be limiting? For example, if you shoot wildlife a lot, you might want a longer focal length than 250mm. Or if you do low light a lot, you might want something faster than the 18-55. The Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 would be awesome if you want to stick with EF-S but shoot indoors a lot.

People might suggest an inexpensive fast prime. I bought a couple of them: the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4, and honestly I almost never use them. For me, 50mm is too long on a crop body, and the 35mm lens is heavy and manual focus, and I'd rather have the versatility of a zoom. 35mm is too long for star fields, though it would have been nice to be able to use f/1.4 for that.

I use my 11-16 a lot, but still not as much as I'd like. It takes awesome star field photos, but just barely. It would be nice to have more light or less noise to work with. I love the wide angle perspective, but it takes skill to get really great wide angle shots. It's probably me favorite lens, even though I've taken relatively few photos with it so far.

I like shooting the night sky, and I'm in a place where I can do it, and my plan for future gear acquisition is based around that. Once I have a few thousand dollars lying around I want to buy: A full frame body like the 6D or whatever it's successor is (6D II?), the Tokina 16-28 which is the full frame equivalent of my 11-16, and the Tamron 24-70 which is almost as good as the Canon 24-70 II for a lot less money. According to DXOMark, the Tokina 16-28 is *sharper* at it's peak than the Zeiss Distagon T 21mm f/2.8 ZE (tested at f/4 vs f/2.8, respectively)! For less than half the price, I'll take it! And I would keep my T3i and 55-520 for telephoto shots since it's cheaper, smaller, and lighter than a big full frame telephoto.

Think about what you want to do. It sounds like you aren't set on full frame, so you can get good lenses for less money by sticking with EF-S. Going to full frame is a several thousand dollar commitment.

In summary, here are my suggestions for lenses that would offer new possibilities:Tokina 11-16 for wide angle shots.Canon 24mm TS-E or another TS-E for architecture, landscapes, etc. Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 for low light/ indoor shots

I started with crop bodies, the original Rebel D300, then years later the 60D. Two 28-135mm lenses had the IS feature fail. After buying a 5D Classic, I have changed directions. I do have the EF-S 15-85mm f/4-5.6 lens, and it works very well on the 60D or my 40D. I find, however, unless I am shooting wildlife or birds in flight, I prefer the way my full frame lenses work from a focal length standpoint for general photography with a FF body. I will not be buying any more EF-S lenses, nor any more variable aperture lenses. I now also have a 6D, and I am generally grabbing the FF bodies these days.

You can see my lens assortment at the bottom of my post. Many of these lenses were purchased on the used market. The L lenses have had no failures, and they hold their value quite well if you choose to upgrade later. The newer bodies have lower noise than the older ones, so generally I have found f/4 lenses with a constant aperture to be adequate. That said, for indoor events the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is a stunning lens but with a significant price tag.

Bottom line, buy good FF lenses if you can, and then pick up a full frame body when finances allow.

I went from an XT, to a 60D, to a 7D, and finally the 5D3. Before getting the 7D, I bought the 70-200 f2.8L II and the 17-55 f2.8 for use with my 60D. For me, these are THE lenses for crop bodies. You need to examine the focal range that you shoot most often, then choose which lens to invest in first.

I most often shoot candids, events, and indoor sports. The 70-200 is an ideal lens for these situations. It was my most used lens on the 7D and is now even more useful on the 5D3.

The 70D offers a better focus system for both action stills and video than the T3i. If focus issues are an issue, then the 70D is worth considering. However, the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 will give you a bigger bump in image quality than upgrading to the 70D. These lenses are sharper and faster. The 2.8 alone will give you greater subject separation if shot wide open and will make many of your images pop. For available light, there are no better choices in zooms.

I'd probably invest in a new lens. The 70D is tempting as it has some nice features but as others have mentioned, the image quality might be slightly better but the higher ISO performance doesn't necessarily warrant an upgrade. You will probably see better results from a lens. My bit of advice though is to invest in one that will work with full frame. I made the mistake of investing in several lens which only work on crop sensors and everytime I'm tempted to jump to the 6D and/or the 5DMkIII I'm held back by the fact that half my lenses won't work. I'm holding off hope for the 7DMk2 or whatever pro-crop sensor that comes out next to have better higher ISO capabilities or I might have to bite the bullet and try to sell the crop lenses. Lenses I would recommend though are: 24-70mm L F/4 (good all around lens, not to pricey; the 2.8 is much better but expensive), 17-40mm L F/4 or the 16-35mm L F2.8 for travel/lanscape. If your are looking for a good ultra wide, look to the Samyang 14mm 2.8. Sure it's manual but it's cheap and sharp. Who's in a big hurry to shoot landscapes? All are compatible with full frame if in 4 years you decide to by go that route. Good luck.

Only way I would upgrade to the 70D is if you're into video as the dual pixel sensor is supposed to be outstanding.

I have the same camera as you, and the same lenses, until recently when I bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4 and a Canon 400mm 5.6 And with them I feel covered at the moment. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelhooper/)And that makes me agree with the person who asked what photos you take.For me, I love the challenge of a prime, and I hope to get good at it some day! (I hired a 17-55 for a while, but I found the faster prime more useful.)M

For your consideration, I took this with my 50D with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) and some off-camera light, a little love in Lightroom 5. I recommend all of those to you for a step up without breaking the bank.

If your just shooting with kit lenses on a rebel, I would really recommend going for a Sony RX10. If your traveling around a lot, it's perfect! No need to change lenses and a constant F/2.8 lens.

Constant f2.8, yes, but due to it's smaller sensor it's not better in low light or DoF options than an f3.5-5.6 lens on APS-C throughout the zoom range. Take a look at this comparison to the 18-135 lens from dpreview:

Hi all!I am new in this forum, I have just registered because I would like to hear your suggestions.

Last year I bought a T3i, together with a EFS 18-55/3,5-5,6 IS II and a EFS 55-250/4-5,6 IS II.I really like it, and I used it a lot. I use it mainly when I travel, what I do very often due to my work.

I always liked to take photos, but I am not a Pro. Fortunately, this year I could save money to invest in my equipment. I thought I could buy a new camera - first I thought in changing to a full frame, but my budget is not enough. Then I thought I could buy the new 70d, as I could buy the body only and use my EFS lens. My idea is that after some time, I could start buying EF lens (70d supports both EF and EFS) and later on, I could change to a full frame (if I see I will really take advantage of the difference).I would like to take better quality pictures, and honesty I don't care very much of new features as the built in Wi-Fi. Do you think I will get any difference with a 70D?

But I also thought that I could invest in a new lens instead of a new camera. I read good comments about the EF-S 15-85/3,5-5,6 IS USM. I would have a longer focal length lens, and wider.

I would like to hear from you what would you do - jump to a 70D or invest in this (or other) lens?

I use a t2i. As far as sensor and overall image quality - all the current crops are very close of not identical 18MP camera. The 70d 20 MP seems to be more of the same - with a very slight improvement as far as digic 6 and more MP. Bottom line - the 70d is not a "jump" in IQ. (if you do video that's a whole other matter as the 70d has ground breaking constant AF)

I would easily recommend the 15-85 which I use allot as your "go to" lens as a superior general lens. The 15-85 is a pleasure to use, durable build, nice and wide, nice and long, fast AF, great colors.

The only cons I can think of are:- A little nose heavy on the rebel - get a grip to balance this out.- Some annoying lens creep - the grip will help for this as well - as the camera will hang from your neck nose "out" and not nose "down" because of the balance / weight of the grip at the bottom of the camera.

Assuming you have the 15-85 (15mm is very nice on a crop!) you might want to get the nifty fifty as a fast prime for portraits or more artistic work.

I would even say - to prefer the 15-85 over the 17-55 for your purposes as a travel lens. For most outdoor usage the 15-85 is more attractive as it is wider and longer, lighter to carry, and built stronger.

I would personally get some new glass rather than a new body. I don't see much point in getting the EF-S 15-85mm since you already have the 18-55 and 55-250. For the same price as a 70D body on Amazon, you could get:

All the above lenses are faster than the 2 zooms you have, and generally get good reviews. If you are considering moving to full frame in the future, the Tokina is the only one of these lenses not designed for full frame. It did kind of work as a 16mm prime on my 5D, but the corner quality was poor so I swapped it for the Samyang.